Thresholds for tactile sensitivity perceived with dental implants remain unchanged during healing phase of 3 months

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to determine the tactile pressure thresholds perceived with dental implants during a three-month healing phase following implant placement (osseointegration phase). The absolute threshold of tactile perception was measured in a group of patients 1 week, 1, 2 and 3 months following implant placement (ITI Dental Implant System, Straumann AG, Waldenburg, Switzerland). Contralateral and neighbouring teeth were measured at the same time. For determination of the axial forces exerted on the implants and teeth, and electronic device with semi-conductor strain gauges was used (Hämmerle et al. 1995). The results demonstrated mean thresholds of tactile perception for the implants of 160.2 g (SD 61.7 g, range 77 approximately 283 g) at 1 week, 133.4 g (SD 51.9 g, range 32 approximately 239 g) at 1 month, 147.9 g (SD 53.5 g, range 70 approximately 257 g) at 2 months, and 146.9 g (SD 57.4 g, range 77 approximately 248 g) at 3 months. Statistical analysis using Student's paired t-test revealed no significant differences between the values over time. The control teeth exhibited mean values for tactile perception of 13.1 g (SD 9.6 g, range 5 approximately 47 g) at 1 week, 10.2 g (SD 6.4 g, range 4 approximately 29 g) at 1 month, 14.8 g (SD 15.9 g, range 2 approximately 58 g) at 2 months, and 15.4 g (SD 12.2 g, range 3 approximately 36 g) at 3 months. Again, these values did not differ significantly from each other and indicated the absence of systemic alterations in perceived pressure threshold over the observation period. The mean perceived pressure threshold was more than 10 times higher for implants than for natural teeth (P < 0.001) at all observation times. It is concluded that the absolute threshold of tactile perception with dental implants during the phase of osseointegration is not affected by bone and soft tissue healing taking place during the time period.

Tactile Sensibility of Single‐Tooth Implants and Natural Teeth Under Local Anesthesia of the Natural Antagonistic Teeth

“…As far as active tactile sensibility is concerned, it could be shown that the interocclusal perception sensibility of single‐tooth implants when occluding against natural antagonists and of the remaining natural dentition are equivalent ( P < 0.01, power >80%) 14 . In passive tactile sensibility studies, the implants were clearly less sensitive than the teeth selected for comparison; the values for passive tactile capability were higher by a factor of 8 to 10, and in some cases they were 50 times higher 15–17 . Very small static pressures cannot be felt through osseointegrated implants, but greater static and dynamic loads (= vibrations) in axial and horizontal direction can be felt 18 .…”

A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years

“…On the other hand, tactile perception of natural tooth abutments was shown to be significantly higher (8.8‐fold) than that demonstrated for implant abutments (Hämmerle et al 1995). These increased thresholds for tactile perception in implants were established already after one week of healing and remained unchanged during the entire healing period of tissue integration (3 months) of the implants (Keller et al 1996). Hence, for reasons of chewing comfort the incorporation of natural teeth as abutments in otherwise implant‐supported reconstructions may also be practiced.…”

Osseoperception in Dental Implants: A Systematic Review

“…After being restored with an implant‐supported prosthesis, patients seem to function well, perceiving mechanical stimuli exerted on osseointegrated implants in the jawbone . In patients followed up after implant placement, a noticeable improvement in tactile function with dental implants following a 3‐month healing period has been observed, potentially indicating that the feedback pathway to the sensory cortex is partly restored with a hypothetical representation of the prosthesis in the sensory cortex, allowing a more appropriate modulation of the motor neuron pool, and leading to a more natural functioning and avoiding overload …”